Learning to teach mathematics through inquiry:a focus on the relationship between describingand enacting inquiry-oriented teaching
Jo Towers
Published online: 16 December 2009� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract This article is based on one of the several case studies of recent graduates of a
teacher education programme that is founded upon inquiry-based, field-oriented and
learner-focussed principles and practices and that is centrally concerned with shaping
teachers who can enact strong inquiry-based practices in Kindergarten to Grade
12 classrooms. The analysis draws on interviews with one graduate, and on video data
collected in his multi-aged Grade 1/2 classroom, to explore some of the ways in which this
new teacher enacted inquiry-based teaching approaches in his first year of teaching and to
consider his capacity to communicate his understanding of inquiry. This article presents
implications for beginning teachers’ collaborative practices, for the assessment of new
teachers and for practices in preservice teacher education.
Keywords Inquiry-based learning and teaching � Beginning teachers �Communicating beliefs
Introduction
Research shows that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs do not necessarily match their classroom
practices (e.g. Herbel-Eisenmann et al. 2006; Raymond 1997). In this literature, it is most
commonly reported that beginning teachers’ classroom practice lags behind (in terms of
sophistication) their espoused beliefs and their ability to describe good practice (Barrett
et al. 2002; Britzman 1991; Raymond 1997), and that what teachers learn in mainstream
teacher education, and from educational research, does not transfer to the classroom setting
(Kennedy 1997; Lampert and Ball 1998; Wilson and Goldenberg 1998); in other words,
that beginning teachers can ‘talk the talk’ before they can ‘walk the walk’. Whitehead
(1929) would refer to such beginning teachers as having ‘inert’ knowledge—they can talkabout an idea or construct, but it does not guide their action in new settings. In contrast,
J. Towers (&)Faculty of Education, University of Calgary, EDT 1102, 2500, University Drive, NW,Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canadae-mail: [email protected]
123
J Math Teacher Educ (2010) 13:243–263DOI 10.1007/s10857-009-9137-9
in this article, I develop the argument that, in particular forms of teacher education (such as
the inquiry-based programme in which the teacher described in this article participated), it
may be the case that teachers learn to ‘walk the walk’ of inquiry-based teaching and
learning before they develop a sophisticated ability to ‘talk the talk’. This article is based
on one of several case studies of recent graduates of our teacher education programme—a
programme that is founded upon inquiry-based, field-oriented and learner-focussed prin-
ciples and practices and that is centrally concerned with shaping teachers who can enact
strong inquiry-based practices in Kindergarten to Grade 12 classrooms. The analysis
reported here draws on interviews with one graduate (Daniel1), and on video data collected
in his multi-aged Grade 1/2 classroom, to explore some of the ways in which this beginning
teacher2 enacted inquiry-based teaching approaches that he had learned about in his teacher
preparation programme in his first year of teaching and to consider his capacity to com-
municate his understanding of inquiry.
Theoretical framework—a phronetic approach to teaching and learning
Despite the extensive efforts of preservice teacher education (Darling-Hammond and
Bransford 2005), technical modes of teaching, which valorise prediction, measurement and
control in the classroom, still dominate K-12 education in North America. In the area of
mathematics instruction, for example, research conducted in the United States by Jacobs
et al. (2006) and others (e.g. Hiebert and Stigler 2000) has shown that current teaching
approaches are more like the kind of traditional teaching reported for most of the past
century (Cuban 1993) than the kind of teaching promoted by mathematics educators and
mathematics education leadership organisations such as the National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics (e.g. NCTM 2000). Despite this gloomy portrait, and as Watzke (2007)
indicates, many researchers have proposed that teachers undergo positive developmental
changes as they gain classroom experience. Many such developmental theories draw on
Fuller’s (1969) ‘concerns theory’, which posits three developmental stages: first, a concern
for self (such as concerns for receiving good evaluations from administrators, and
acceptance by colleagues); secondly, a concern about the task of teaching (such as worries
about instructional methods and perceived deterrents to the delivery of curriculum, etc.);
and thirdly, concern for impact (such as concerns for guiding, challenging and meeting the
needs of diverse students). Fuller proposed that these concerns follow a hierarchical pat-
tern, with teachers advancing through the three stages as they gain experience. Whilst some
studies confirmed this assumption, Watzke (2007) noted that multiple beginning teacher
studies, including his own, have rejected this chronology and instead have consistently
identified the prevalence of beginning teachers’ concerns for impact. Such research, whilst
it may confirm that the new generation of beginning teachers are primarily concerned about
student learning and are capable of complex and student-oriented thinking (Burn et al.
2000), does not provide evidence that such articulated beliefs and concerns are actually
reflected in the beginning teachers’ classroom practices. This article presents one example
of a beginning teacher enacting teaching practices inspired by a philosophy—phronesis—
that explicitly rejects a technical perspective on teaching.
1 All the names (beginning teacher and school students) used in this article are pseudonyms.2 As the research reported here spanned a period of time covering the participant’s experiences in preserviceteacher education and in his first year of teaching, I use the term ‘prospective teacher’ to refer to theexperiences of the participant during his preservice teacher preparation programme, and the term ‘beginningteacher’ to refer to his experiences in a school classroom as a full-fledged teacher.
244 J. Towers
123
As Coulter and Wiens (2002) note, phronesis does not easily translate into English, but a
common translation, and one adopted by the teacher education programme in which the
beginning teacher featured in this writing participated, is practical wisdom. Phronesis is a
particular kind of knowledge—one oriented to action, and specifically ethical action, action
oriented to the good (Lund et al. 2006; Coulter and Wiens 2002; Ricoeur 1992; Wall
2003). Phronesis, or practical wisdom, in its various forms, is now emerging as an
important re-orientation for practice across disciplines (Sullivan and Rosin 2008). Whilst
the various enactments of phronesis in practice differ somewhat in their emphases, they
each contrast sharply with the dominant technical rationalist approach to teaching.
As Dunne (2005) notes, a technical approach to teaching is one that
seeks to extract from [practice] a rational core that can be made transparent and
replicable. Typically, this entails disembedding the knowledge implicit in the skilful
performance of the characteristic tasks of the practice from the immediacy and idi-
osyncrasy of the particular situations in which it is deployed, and from the background
of experience and character in the practitioners in whom it resides. Through this
disembedding, it is supposed that what is essential in the knowledge and skill can be
abstracted for encapsulation in explicit, generalisable formulae, procedures, or
rules—which can in turn be applied to the various situations and circumstances that
arise in the practice, so as to meet the problems they present (p. 375).
Conceptions of teaching grounded in Aristotle’s notion of phronesis instead emphasise
the importance of judgment in context. Hence, in a phronetic frame, less emphasis is
placed on the applying of generalised knowledge (such as knowledge of efficient routines
for pacing lessons) and more on the ability to bring general and particular—theory and
practice—‘into illuminating connection with each other’ (Dunne 2005, p. 376). ‘This
requires perceptiveness in [the] reading of particular situations as much as flexibility
in…‘possessing’ and ‘applying’ the general knowledge’ (p. 376).
Flyvbjerg (2001) also notes that phronesis is oriented towards praxis or thoughtful
action, and adds that phronesis concerns itself with addressing three fundamental ques-
tions—Where are we going? Is this desirable? What should be done (in other words, what
is best to do for these students, in this context, with this subject matter, etc.)? These are
questions that reverberated throughout the academic spaces in which the teachers in this
study dwelt during their teacher education programme. The theme of striving for the good
in practice runs as an undercurrent to the programme, and hence becomes an imperative for
many of the graduates as they begin teaching.3 In addition, Ricoeur’s (1992) formulation of
ethical intention as aiming at the good life with and for others in just institutions guides the
actions of the teacher educators responsible for leading the programme and formulating its
curriculum (Lund et al. 2006). The programme embraces phronesis, ‘and in doing so
attempts to prepare teachers [who] can dwell within the rough ground of experience,
appreciate its complexity and deep interpretability, and respond ethically’ (Phelan 2005a,
p. 62). In other words, the programme attempts to develop a capacity for discernment(Dunne and Pendlebury 2002). ‘Discernment speaks to a teacher’s capacity to see the
significance of a situation, to imagine various possibilities for action and to judge ethically
3 Continuing longitudinal research with Daniel and the other graduates is revealing that despite challengingcontexts in which these graduates have been called upon to practice in their beginning years and despitesometimes implicit and/or explicit rejection of their ideas by more experienced colleagues around them inthe schools, their frame of reference for judging how to act in relation to their students has continued to bethe phronetic philosophy of the programme. Publications detailing these findings are currently in process.
Learning to teach mathematics through inquiry 245
123
how one ought to act on any given occasion’ (Phelan 2005a, p. 62). A sense of ethical
purpose is, then, central to the work of teaching (and teacher education), and this imper-
ative is taken seriously in the programme.
Given these philosophical underpinnings, a phronetic approach to teaching therefore
calls forth from practitioners a set of capacities and practices that differ strongly from those
valued within a technical rationalist frame. This cluster of practices is commonly referred
to as an inquiry-based approach.
Inquiry-based practice
Inquiry-based practice, in various guises and with multiple descriptors, is emerging as a
popular approach to teaching and learning in many fields, particularly those in professional
domains (see e.g. Hayes 2002; Phelan 2005b; Plowright and Watkins 2004; Shore et al.
2008). Many of the practices now clustered within the term inquiry-based have a basis
in Dewey’s philosophy of learning, and, in the field of mathematics education, can be
traced through the constructivist movement and are reflected in the ‘reform’ movement
spearheaded in North America by the US-based National Council of Teachers of Mathe-
matics (NCTM 2000). Inquiry-based practice is a slippery concept, and it is variously
interpreted and represented in the literature (Aulls and Shore 2008). As Hayes (2002)
notes, inquiry is often conflated or used interchangeably with other terms that describe
similar teaching practices, such as hands-on learning, generative teaching, and construc-
tivist practice.
Advice for teachers attempting to enact inquiry-based practices is now beginning to
proliferate and here, also, definitions of inquiry are quite disparate. A publication produced
for Alberta teachers by Alberta Learning draws on the work of the Galileo Educational
Network, an educational organisation based at the University of Calgary, to define inquiry
as ‘the dynamic process of being open to wonder and puzzlements and coming to know and
understand the world’ (Alberta Learning 2004, p. 1). The document further suggests that
‘inquiry-based learning is a process where students are involved in their learning, for-
mulate questions, investigate widely and then build new understandings, meanings and
knowledge’ (p. 1). Elsewhere, inquiry-based practice is recognised as ‘inquiry into
authentic questions generated from student experience’ (National Research Council, cited
in Hayes 2002), or as ‘the process of searching for patterns and relationships in the world
around us’ (Moscovici and Holmlund Nelson 1998).
Given these descriptions of inquiry, we can anticipate that inquiry-oriented teaching
rests upon a particular set of teacher competencies and dispositions, though it is not easy to
discern a coherent or agreed set of such capacities from the emerging literature. Not
surprisingly, most of the literature on teacher competence works from a technical frame
(such teaching is, after all, much easier to measure against standardised objectives). In this
literature, strong performances on standardised testing instruments are often used as the
fundamental measure of teacher capability (see e.g. Benjamin 2002; Mertler and Campbell
2005; Pecheone and Chung 2006). Such measures privilege technical modes of teaching—
modes that in themselves privilege efficient routines that ‘aspire to exercise total
control…defined in terms of optimal effectiveness in achieving ends, and optimal efficiency
in realising most benefit with least cost’ (Dunne 2005, p. 374). In contrast, scholars and
teachers educated in and through phronesis value other practices in their analyses and
enactments of teaching, and these practices and dispositions tend to be less amenable to
measurement on standardised scales.
246 J. Towers
123
The kinds of knowledge, practices and dispositions typically attributed to inquiry-
oriented teachers include:
• a level of comfort with ambiguity and uncertainty (Lampert and Ball 1998; Phelan
2005a, b);
• understanding the provisional nature of knowledge (Dunne 1997; Lampert and Ball
1998; Phelan 2005a) and the complexity of the teaching/learning relationship (Phelan
2005b);
• responsiveness to students (Lampert and Ball 1998; Moscovici and Holmlund Nelson
1998);
• a commitment to exploring student thinking as well as skill in probing and making
sense of students’ ideas (Lampert 2001; Lampert and Ball 1998; NCTM 2000);
• knowing how to ‘teach for understanding’, including fluency in teaching with
manipulatives, guiding small-group work, capitalising on students’ multiple solution
strategies, and so on (Lampert and Ball 1998; NCTM 2000);
• the ability to understand and draw out the deep structure of the discipline so that
learners learn to reason and connect ideas (Puntambekar et al. 2007) and
• a commitment to building a community of inquiry in the classroom (Alberta Learning
2004; Phelan 2005a), as well as a host of social and personal capacities such as care and
concern for others.
In determining the extent to which the beginning teachers in the study enacted inquiry-
based practices in their beginning teaching, the analysis of data described in the following
sections draws on these core principles of inquiry-based teaching and learning.
Context of the study
Daniel, the participant on whom I focus in this article, engaged in a two-year Bachelor of
Education After-Degree programme at the University of Calgary that is founded on
inquiry-based, learner-focussed and field-oriented principles and practices (see Phelan
2005a, for a broader description of the structure and guiding philosophy of the pro-
gramme). Within this programme, prospective teachers are taught in small groups, usually
between 15 and 22, collaboration is encouraged, the entire programme is non-graded and
much of the curriculum is case-based. Prospective teachers complete three major field
placements—two in school settings and one in a community or workplace setting. They are
in schools continually during the programme, sometimes for 2 days per week and some-
times for full immersion, but whether they are in school or on campus the focus of the
programme’s teacher educators is on integrating theory and practice so that each informs
the other. The description of the programme that follows reflects the programme structure
that was in place when the data collection for this study was undertaken. Since that time, as
the programme itself is constantly evolving, some changes to the organisational structure,
though not to the principles and philosophy, have taken place.
In the first semester of the programme, which focusses on the theme of Learning andTeaching, all the prospective teachers (secondary and elementary, together) participate in
weekly Case Tutorials, with written case studies focussing on learners and learning and
teachers and teaching. Prospective teachers (again secondary and elementary combined)
also participate in weekly Professional Inquiry Seminars designed to help them interrogate
their assumptions and biases and begin to formulate their identities as beginning teachers.
Prospective teachers are in schools 2 days per week for half the semester, and in a
Learning to teach mathematics through inquiry 247
123
Community/Workplace placement 2 days per week for the remainder of the semester—this
latter element designed to help them explore and begin to understand the diversity of
spaces in which educational experiences take place in our society. A weekly, two-hour,
on-campus Field Inquiry Seminar in the first semester supports and guides the work of the
prospective teachers in their various field placements, and here prospective teachers are
separated into elementary and secondary routes. Prospective teachers are encouraged to
understand their time in schools and classrooms as a text to be interpreted and as a form of
inquiry into what it means to learn to teach rather than as a space in which to simply
practice being a teacher, and it is perhaps this emphasis more than any other that gradually,
over the 2 years of the programme, helps prospective teachers learn to teach phronetically.
In the second semester of the programme, within the theme Curriculum Content andCurriculum Contexts, prospective teachers continue in their school placements 2 days per
week, with an additional week-long immersion near the end of the semester, and this work
continues to be supported by a weekly Field Inquiry Seminar on campus at the university.
Prospective teachers participate in two weekly, three-hour Case Tutorials in this semester
(again separated by specialist route). In the third semester of the programme, within the
theme Praxis, prospective teachers participate in a major field placement in a school
(typically in a different grade division, socio-economic region of the city, etc., than their
first-year placement). Prospective teachers are in schools 4 days per week for much of the
semester, and this work is supported by a weekly, three-hour, on-campus Field Inquiry
Seminar that also integrates a Case Tutorial component, wherein prospective teachers are
asked to develop ‘living cases’ derived from their practices in schools. Within third
semester, prospective teachers also experience a full-time, three-week immersion in
schools. In the final semester of the programme, focussing on the theme Integration,
prospective teachers engage in three weekly, three-hour, on-campus components—a Pro-
fessional Inquiry Seminar which further develops the aims of the first semester Profes-
sional Inquiry Seminar, a Case Tutorial, and a Special Topics Seminar, all of which engage
both elementary and secondary route prospective teachers together. The Special Topics
Seminar requires prospective teachers to complete a research-based inquiry project that
includes opportunities for them to return to their schools in the role of action researcher
(Benke et al. 2008) to further analyse issues of teaching and learning in context. This
seminar is also the only space in which the prospective teachers have choice in the
programme, and many opt to engage in deeper study of the various curriculum areas they
may be asked to teach in their beginning practice in schools.
The participants in the research study were prospective teachers who opted to partici-
pate in my own Special Topics Seminar in the final semester that focussed on teaching
mathematics through inquiry. Participants in the seminar, and in the research, were drawn
from early childhood, elementary, and secondary routes in the programme. During the
seminar, prospective teachers were exposed to current research on teaching mathematics
through inquiry, and the weekly seminars were also structured around mathematics tasks
that required participants to engage in learning mathematics through inquiry.
The research study
The purposes of the research study were to explore the experiences of prospective teachers
learning to teach mathematics within an inquiry-based teacher education programme and to
study whether and how these teachers enacted what they had learned in their teacher
preparation programme in their first year of teaching. In order to conduct the research,
248 J. Towers
123
I videotaped 12 of the 13 three-hour teaching sessions4 during the final semester of the
programme in the Special Topics Seminar, focussing the camera both on myself and on
small groups of volunteer prospective teachers (12 in total) as they worked on the math-
ematics and pedagogy tasks. I also interviewed nine of these volunteers once they had left
the programme in the Spring (the remaining three being unavailable to continue with the
research after the end of the teacher education programme). I then followed three of these
beginning teachers, as they embarked upon their first year of teaching, and continued to
interview them during the year.5 I and/or my research assistant also videotaped their
mathematics teaching throughout the year, averaging nine videotaped lessons per teacher
between September and June. We also conducted task-based interviews at the end of the
year with some of the children who had been part of the classroom videotaping to gain
more information about the children’s mathematical understanding. Daniel was one of the
three beginning teachers in whose classrooms I videotaped throughout the first year of
teaching. He has been chosen as the focus of this article not because he is unique but
because his experience, talk, and classroom practices are consistent with those of all three
beginning teachers I followed. Whilst I might, therefore, have focussed on any one of the
three, Daniel’s case highlights the particular challenges for a beginning teacher whose first
teaching assignment is in a teaching environment in which his/her practices are clearly
different to those of a more experienced grade-team partner.
Data analysis proceeded through an iterative process of viewing and reviewing the
video data and supporting evidence (such as field notes and copies of school students’ work
on classroom mathematics tasks), following the approach described by Powell et al.
(2003). Initially, the videotapes were viewed in their entirety to get a sense of their content
and context, without imposing a specific analytical lens. In the second stage, the video data
were described through writing brief, time-coded descriptions of each video’s content. The
aim was both to map out the video data for further analysis and to become more familiar
with its content. In the third stage, the data (videotapes and coded notes) were reviewed to
identify ‘critical events’ (see e.g. Maher 2002). The fourth stage involved analysing and
coding these identified critical events to create rich and detailed theoretical descriptions of
critical events in the process of learning to teach of a number of prospective teachers, over
various time periods. The fifth stage of analysis involved examining closely these analysed
and coded critical events to identify and construct a storyline to ‘discern an emerging and
evolving narrative about the data’ (Powell et al. 2003, p. 430). For Daniel, this storyline
has at its core the disparity between his ability to describe inquiry and his more sophis-
ticated ability to enact inquiry-based practice in his classroom. In the final stage of data
analysis (still in progress), the storylines established for each research participant in the
fifth stage are reassembled to produce cross-case written narratives that speak to general
themes in the data and address other aspects of the nature of learning to teach through
inquiry. Elsewhere, I focus in more detail on some of my own teacher education practices
4 The first session was not videotaped so that prospective teachers had time to understand the purposes andmethods of the study and make informed choices about whether to participate in the research.5 The three beginning teachers were ‘chosen’ for accessibility reasons rather than because they had shownparticular skills in, or understanding of, inquiry-based practice. For instance, though some beginningteachers volunteered to be videotaped in their first-year classrooms, their school principals would not allowthe research to proceed (citing it as too much pressure for a beginning teacher). In addition, I was unable toinclude in the school-based component of the research those volunteers who accepted teaching positions inremote locations in distant provinces as well as those who did not gain a full-time teaching contract untilafter the school-based research component had begun.
Learning to teach mathematics through inquiry 249
123
within this inquiry-based programme (e.g. Towers 2007), and on the issue of the sus-
tainability of beginning teachers’ inquiry-based practices in current K-12 schooling
structures (Towers 2008), but here I present a description and analysis of one beginning
teacher’s practices and discourse to explore both the extent to which this beginning teacher
was able to enact inquiry-based teaching approaches in his first year of teaching and his
capacity to communicate his understanding of inquiry.
Daniel’s experience
Daniel’s classroom practice
At the conclusion of his teacher education programme, Daniel, an elementary-route student
with a background in theatre arts, secured a position in a multi-aged Grade 1/2 classroom.
He demonstrated inquiry-based classroom practice from the very beginning of his first year
of teaching. Analysis of the videotapes recorded in Daniel’s classroom reveals that he
employed a range of teaching strategies consistent with strong inquiry-based practice, such
as using varied and interesting prompts to engage learners, drawing from commendable
sources when planning for teaching (such as the journals of the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics), using good children’s literature and taped stories as prompts for
mathematical investigation, using children’s own suggestions as prompts for mathematical
investigation, often incorporating the use of manipulatives in his classroom, connecting the
mathematics to other curriculum areas the children were studying, encouraging the chil-
dren to work together to solve problems, showing genuine interest in students’ alternative
solution strategies, and encouraging mathematical reasoning and argumentation. Table 1
offers examples of the kinds of mathematical tasks that Daniel set for his class and the
kinds of teaching strategies he employed.
It is beyond the scope of this article to provide extensive transcripts from the lessons
that might serve as evidence of Daniel’s classroom practice. Instead, I provide here a
description of one lesson that shows features that were typical of problems, events,
practices, and norms in Daniel’s classroom throughout the year. This particular lesson
occurred in April near the end of the school year, though similar problems, conversations,
and ideas were in play from the very beginning of the year. Daniel began the lesson by
reviewing what the children remembered about a story they had recently read about the
history of counting. In the story, a shepherd boy had counted the sheep in his care by
collecting small black pebbles—one for each sheep. When the bag of pebbles became too
heavy, the shepherd boy painted some of the pebbles red (with berry juice)—one red
pebble for every 10 black. In this way, he was able to reduce the number of pebbles he had
to carry in his bag. In time, the flock grew and the boy extended his system by colouring a
pebble green for every 100 sheep. In class, as the students re-told the story, Daniel rep-
resented the various numbers of sheep in the story by drawing black, red, and green dots on
chart paper. The task he then set for the class was to show different ways of representing
any given number with coloured dots. As an example, Daniel showed how 112 could be
written as one green dot (100), one red dot (ten) and two black dots, or as one green dot and
12 black dots. Daniel then extended the problem context to consider how the 112 sheep
could be represented if they were located in two different fields (e.g. 51 ? 61). As he set
the students to work in pairs, he asked for three representations of the given number using
dots—(1) the shortest way to represent the whole number, (2) an alternative way to
represent the whole number and (3) lots of ways the sheep could be distributed between
250 J. Towers
123
Ta
ble
1A
sam
ple
of
Dan
iel’
sm
ath
emat
ical
task
san
dte
ach
ing
stra
teg
ies
Tas
kd
escr
ipti
on
(Non
-ex
hau
stiv
e)S
amp
leo
fte
ach
ing
stra
teg
ies
emp
loyed
Bic
ycle
/tri
cycl
ep
robl
ems
Wit
hin
ari
chst
ory
con
tex
tab
ou
ta
bic
ycl
esh
op
(no
td
escr
ibed
infu
llh
ere)
stu
den
tsar
eas
ked
toso
lve
var
iou
sar
ith
met
icp
rob
lem
so
ver
sev
eral
day
s.E
xam
ple
sin
clu
de:
(1)
Ifth
esh
opkee
per
wis
hes
toco
nst
ruct
five
bic
ycl
esan
dfo
ur
tric
ycl
es,
how
man
yw
hee
lsm
ust
he
ord
erto
asse
mb
leth
eb
ikes
?(2
)H
ow
man
yh
and
gri
ps
mu
sth
eo
rder
(giv
enea
chb
ike
nee
ds
two
han
dgri
ps)
?(3
)If
the
sho
pk
eep
eris
sen
t1
2ad
dit
ion
alw
hee
lsb
yth
esu
pp
lier
,h
ow
man
yad
dit
ion
alb
icycl
e(o
rtr
icy
cle)
fram
esd
oes
he
nee
din
ord
erto
use
up
the
whee
ls?
(4)
Ifth
esh
opk
eep
erw
ishes
toco
nst
ruct
bic
ycl
esa
nd
tric
ycl
esw
ith
the
extr
a12
whee
ls,
how
man
yo
fea
chco
uld
he
buil
d?
En
coura
ged
stru
gg
lin
gle
arn
ers
tou
sem
anip
ula
tiv
esto
repre
sen
tth
ew
hee
lsan
dh
and
leb
ars
En
coura
ged
stud
ents
tow
ork
ing
rou
ps
toso
lve
the
pro
ble
ms
Ensu
red
alte
rnat
ive
solu
tion
stra
tegie
sw
ere
shar
edan
ddis
cuss
edE
nco
ura
ged
mat
hem
atic
alre
ason
ing
and
mat
hem
atic
alco
mm
un
ity
bu
ild
ing
by
usi
ng
ast
ory
con
tex
t,b
ysh
ow
ing
that
he
val
ued
hea
rin
gst
ud
ents
’st
rate
gie
s,an
db
yre
qu
irin
gst
ud
ents
toex
pla
inth
eir
pro
cess
,et
c.)
Rea
ms
of
pa
per
pro
blem
Dri
ven
by
stu
den
tin
tere
stin
the
amo
un
to
fp
aper
use
din
thei
rsc
ho
ol,
stud
ents
wer
ein
vit
edto
calc
ula
teth
en
um
ber
of
ream
so
fp
aper
use
db
yth
eir
clas
so
ver
the
yea
r(g
iven
the
nu
mb
erth
ete
ach
ero
rder
edan
dth
en
um
ber
stil
lav
aila
ble
inth
est
ora
ge
area
),an
dth
ento
esti
mat
eh
ow
the
pap
erco
uld
hav
eb
een
use
d/d
istr
ibu
ted
(e.g
.b
yd
ivid
ing
inv
ario
us
way
ssu
chas
by
the
nu
mb
ero
fch
ild
ren
or
by
the
nu
mb
ero
fro
ws
or
clu
ster
so
fd
esk
s)
En
coura
ged
stud
ents
tow
ork
ing
rou
ps
toso
lve
the
pro
ble
mE
nsu
red
alte
rnat
ive
solu
tion
stra
tegie
sw
ere
shar
edan
ddis
cuss
edE
nco
ura
ged
mat
hem
atic
alre
asonin
gth
rough
the
stru
cture
of
the
task
Connec
ted
the
mat
hem
atic
sto
envir
onm
enta
lis
sues
that
connec
tw
ith
the
So
cial
Stu
die
san
dS
cien
cecu
rric
ula
Dre
wu
po
nst
ud
ents
’o
wn
idea
sas
ap
rom
pt
for
exp
lora
tio
n
To
oth
pic
ksp
robl
em
Giv
enfo
ur
too
thpic
ks,
ho
wm
any
dif
fere
nt
way
sca
nth
eyb
ear
ran
ged
(wit
hth
eli
mit
atio
nth
atth
eyca
nonly
touch
ata
ver
tex
and
at90�
or
18
0�)
?O
ffer
edm
anip
ula
tiv
esto
aid
reas
on
ing
and
reco
rdin
gE
nsu
red
alte
rnat
ive
solu
tions
wer
esh
ared
and
dis
cuss
edE
nco
ura
ged
mat
hem
atic
alre
asonin
gan
dm
athem
atic
alco
mm
unit
y-b
uil
din
gth
roug
hth
est
ruct
ure
of
the
task
and
by
enco
ura
gin
gm
ath
emat
ical
argu
men
tati
on
abo
ut
wh
atco
un
tsas
a‘d
iffe
ren
t’so
luti
on
Learning to teach mathematics through inquiry 251
123
Ta
ble
1co
nti
nu
ed
Tas
kd
escr
ipti
on
(Non
-ex
hau
stiv
e)S
amp
leo
fte
ach
ing
stra
teg
ies
emp
loyed
On
eh
un
dred
hu
ng
rya
nts
pro
blem
Usi
ng
ach
ild
ren
’sst
ory
(Pin
czes
19
93),
Dan
iel
intr
od
uce
dth
eco
nce
pts
of
arra
ys,
mult
ipli
cati
on,
div
isio
n,
and
fact
ors
.T
he
story
conce
rns
ants
wal
kin
gto
ap
icn
ic,in
itia
lly
insi
ng
lefi
le,an
dco
nti
nu
ally
bei
ng
rear
ran
ged
by
on
eo
fth
eir
nu
mb
erin
tola
rger
row
sso
that
they
can
get
toth
ep
icnic
fast
er.
Arr
ays
use
din
the
sto
ryin
clu
de
19
10
0,
29
50
,4
92
5,
and
59
20
.A
fter
list
enin
gto
/rea
din
gth
est
ory
,st
ud
ents
wer
eg
iven
ab
ox
of
10
0p
aper
clip
s(w
hic
hth
eyw
ere
touse
tore
pre
sent
the
100
ants
)an
das
ked
toch
eck
that
thei
rb
ox
actu
ally
con
tain
ed1
00
pap
ercl
ips
(whic
hin
itse
lfp
rod
uce
dso
me
inte
rest
ing
and
sop
his
tica
ted
cou
nti
ng
stra
teg
ies)
,th
enfi
gu
reo
ut
ifth
eb
oo
kh
adsh
ow
nal
lth
ep
oss
ible
way
sth
ean
tsco
uld
hav
em
arch
edto
the
pic
nic
in(e
ven
lyd
istr
ibu
ted
)ro
ws
Off
ered
pap
ercl
ips
asm
anip
ula
tiv
esto
repre
sen
tan
tsE
nco
ura
ged
stud
ents
tow
ork
ing
rou
ps
toso
lve
the
pro
ble
mE
nsu
red
alte
rnat
ive
solu
tions
wer
esh
ared
and
dis
cuss
edE
nco
ura
ged
mat
hem
atic
alre
asonin
gth
rough
the
stru
cture
of
the
task
Sq
uar
esa
nd
tria
ngl
esp
robl
em
Stu
den
tsw
ere
requ
ired
tod
eter
min
ew
het
her
squ
ares
or
equ
ilat
eral
tria
ng
les
(or
bo
th)
can
be
con
stru
cted
giv
enp
arti
cula
rp
erim
eter
s.S
tud
ents
wer
eg
iven
the
foll
ow
ing
per
imet
ers
toin
ves
tigat
e:15,
16,
18,
20,
21,
23
and
24
cm
En
coura
ged
stud
ents
tow
ork
ing
rou
ps
toso
lve
the
pro
ble
mE
nsu
red
alte
rnat
ive
solu
tion
stra
tegie
sw
ere
shar
edan
ddis
cuss
edE
nco
ura
ged
mat
hem
atic
alre
asonin
gby
show
ing
that
he
val
ued
hea
ring
stud
ents
’st
rate
gie
s,an
db
yre
qu
irin
gst
ud
ents
toex
pla
inth
eir
pro
cess
,et
c.)
252 J. Towers
123
two fields. As the class was a multi-aged grouping, Daniel differentiated the task by having
different starting numbers for the two grade groupings (though he used flexibility in having
students work at a level of comfort regardless of grade level assignment). For this par-
ticular task (though not always), Daniel chose to have the students work with another
student at the same grade level. Whilst the class was working on the problem, Daniel
circulated around the room, settling the groups and ensuring everyone could begin the task
and then he knelt by the desks of successive pairs of students, encouraging, directly
teaching, asking questions, and monitoring students’ progress and understanding.
In this lesson, for the small-group time, I focussed the camera on two Grade 2 stu-
dents—Marlon and Ophelia. This pair began with the number 126. They quickly drew one
green dot, two red dots and six black dots and moved onto representing this whole number
in different ways. Ophelia’s second representation of 126 was 12 red dots (12 tens) and six
black dots (6 units). Marlon’s second representation was one green dot (100), one red dot
(1 ten) and 16 black dots (16 units). This pair then progressed to the ‘field’ scenarios and,
with a prompt from Daniel, began with two sheep in the first field. Both Marlon and
Ophelia represented two black dots (for the two sheep in the first field) and one green, two
red and four black dots for the remaining 124 sheep. However, Ophelia included
the conventional ‘?’ symbol between the two black dots and the green dot, and between
the red dots and the black dots of the 124. She also introduced the adaptation of writing the
conventional numerals (2 and 124) beneath each representation of dots and colour-coding
each digit to match the colour of dots it represented. Marlon also appropriately coloured
dots for 2 and 124, adding a ‘?’ symbol between them and ending his expression with
‘= 126’. Marlon, in addition to colour-coding dots also showed a distinct tendency,
throughout his work, to use different sizes of dots (large for hundreds, medium for tens and
small for units).
Both students, sometimes working individually and sometimes drawing on each other’s
ideas, created several other representations before Daniel, visiting their desk and recogn-
ising that they needed further challenge, suggested that they set challenges for each other
by each giving the other a starting number of sheep in the first field. Marlon and Ophelia
engaged enthusiastically with this challenge, Ophelia first suggesting 20 sheep in the first
field and Marlon responding with (and representing) ‘ten reds and six blacks’. Ophelia
asked, ‘Is there an easier way to do that’?—pondered the problem for a moment—and
decided ‘one green and six blacks’. They each represented this scenario, showing both
these ways of constructing 126.
When Daniel called the class back to the carpet to discuss their work, he gathered
students’ differing representations of 52 (the initial number assigned to the Grade 1 stu-
dents) and 126, again drawing these on chart paper. During this plenary, many students
showed that they had strong number decomposition skills. For instance, in reviewing a
‘two fields’ scenario offered by a Grade 1 student who suggested that for 52 sheep in two
fields ‘‘you could have three red dots and one black dot in Field One [31] and two red dots
and one black dot in Field Two [21]’, a second student, when asked for an alternative way
of splitting the 52 sheep said, ‘you could take one of the red dots from the three red dots in
Field One and have five black dots on that side [Field One] and five black dots on the other
side’. Daniel used this opportunity to show that this new scenario (26 in each field) had
created a situation in which decomposition would be needed in a two-digit addition in
column format. He wrote 26 ? 26 in column format and connected the 12 that appears in
the algorithm (6 ? 6) to the 12 black dots in the two fields represented on the chart paper
and reinforced how these came from (and can be recombined to make) a red dot and two
black dots.
Learning to teach mathematics through inquiry 253
123
This classroom example shows some features that were typical of Daniel’s classroom:
• active student participation in both small-group and whole class activity,
• mathematics tasks drawn from a story scenario that captured students’ interest and
connected to prior instruction,
• curriculum differentiated in the classroom not by separate, leveled activities and tasks
but by adaptations to, and multiple entry points for, the same task,
• a flexibility in being able to extend a task (e.g. the device of two fields and the game in
which Marlon and Ophelia participated near the end of the session),
• connections made between conceptual understanding and facility with procedures
(e.g. two-digit addition algorithms),
• use of tasks and tools that enable students to glimpse the deep structure of mathematics,
• demonstrating interest in, and valuing, students’ alternative solutions and strategies, and
• encouraging mathematical reasoning.
This classroom description also shows that a sophisticated level of fluency with number
concepts was expected from these Grade 1 and 2 students.
Daniel’s talk about practice
Despite the above evidence of his inquiry-oriented classroom practice, Daniel was one of
the prospective teachers who voiced the greatest concern about his knowledge of, and
preparation for, teaching. When I interviewed him five weeks before the start of his
teaching, he was unsure how he would begin and vague about how to translate his vision
for teaching through inquiry, and his learning in the teacher education programme, into
reality. He reflected on how nervous he was about the first week of school, how he felt
under-prepared to develop a literacy programme for young children, and was not able to
describe to me how one might teach early childhood students through inquiry, though it
was clear that this was how he believed it ought to be approached. In our first interview,
I asked Daniel what he was most looking forward to as he prepared for his first year of
teaching. His initial reaction was to switch focus to talk about what he was most nervous
about instead:
Daniel: [You mean] what am I most nervous about?….There’s a lot of things [laughs].
First of all the first week of school. I mean, I don’t know, I can’t even think about what’s
going to happen….I guess when I get there I’ll figure it out. Erm, and I’m just nervous
that ‘will I do a good job’? You know, is it going to work? I mean, I have a vision of
how it should work, but it never works out that way. You just sort of have to go with the
punches and go with how your classroom sort of moulds together.
Finally, Daniel described what he was most looking forward to:
D: I guess…those moments when they do mould together and things do happen, you
know? [Pause 4 secs] And hopefully they will.
As we talked about what he learned in the mathematics course with me in his final
semester, we start to see (in the next excerpt) a glimpse of how Daniel is thinking about
pedagogy—though he still reported not knowing ‘how to teach Grade One’.
D: Well…I guess if I didn’t have the experience I did in the [mathematics course]
I wouldn’t really understand. I would have sort of gone back to my memories of high
school math or junior high math, which is, you know, memorise, learn, memorise….But
254 J. Towers
123
since I’ve had this experience in the [names the Programme], I’ve kind of looked at it
differently and even though I…probably don’t know how to approach math in Grade
One and Two in all the ways, I know that it’s better to approach it where the children
discover it on their own than to tell them. [Pause]. Although sometimes you need to tell
them if, yeah, but, erm, I haven’t really…thought about the details of how I’m going to
go through that process, but I know that’s how it needs to be done.
We also see here some of the tension in Daniel’s description of inquiry-based learning
and teaching. He struggles to articulate the relationship between children ‘discovering for
themselves’ and the role of the teacher in ‘telling’, rendering this relationship somewhat
dichotomous. The relationship between exploration and telling, as much of my own and
others’ research has shown (Towers 1998, 2002; Towers and Davis 2002; Chazan and Ball
1999; Davis 1994; Lobato et al. 2005; Smith 1996) is, of course, a core dilemma of
teaching that remains unresolved; therefore, it is not surprising that Daniel would struggle
to traverse this terrain verbally in an interview, though I know many who would expect a
more nuanced descriptive ability by the time prospective teachers graduate, as Daniel had,
from 2 years of education in inquiry-based teaching and learning. This, though, is precisely
my point. Many of these beginning teachers were tongue-tied when asked to describe the
nuances of inquiry-based teaching; yet, they were capable of enacting a nuanced under-
standing of inquiry-based practice in their classrooms.
Of course, there were areas of Daniel’s practice that showed the usual beginning teacher
inexperience, such as some of his classroom management strategies, but he himself
commented on this during one of our interviews and described how he had recognised the
problem as one that was ‘contagious’ in his classroom and had made changes to re-stabilise
things, though he was at pains to point out that he was seeking a balance between the
extremes of chaos and too much control and that he really did not want the students to be
‘scared to do anything’ and that he still wanted them to be able to ‘express their ideas’.
We also addressed the issue of collaborating with other teachers—an element of
Daniel’s teacher preparation programme that was emphasised both in descriptions of
inquiry-based teaching and as a core element of the structure of our case-based curriculum.
Given this, I had anticipated that Daniel would value and seek out collaboration in his
school, but his response rather surprised me. As I describe more fully elsewhere (Towers
2008), Daniel admitted that he had resisted his team partner’s vision of ‘team planning’
and ‘team teaching’ for mathematics. He indicated that the other Grade 1/2 team teacher
whose classroom adjoined his wished to split the two grades and teach them separately for
mathematics so that instruction could focus on ‘facts and addition’. Daniel had strongly
resisted this philosophical approach to mathematics teaching, and thus avoided ‘team’
planning and teaching for mathematics, preferring instead to keep his class together and
work in more investigative ways on rich problems that could support the curriculum, and
breadth of ability levels, of both grades of students. In actively choosing not to ‘team’ with
the other Grade 1/2 teacher for mathematics, I do not believe that Daniel was rejecting
collaborative practice as a stance but rather protecting what he saw as an important feature
of his mathematics teaching—the opportunity to present flexible contexts and problems to
students that he felt could accommodate both grade levels of students, rather than split the
classes and teach the two grade levels separately for mathematics so they could focus
on ‘facts’.
In discussing with me this power struggle within his grade team, Daniel framed the
problem in terms of his inability to convey his vision for teaching mathematics through
inquiry in ways that would enable his more traditional team partner to understand:
Learning to teach mathematics through inquiry 255
123
D: [She] isn’t very comfortable with sort of the way I see math being taught. She’s very,
erm, she trusts that I know what I’m talking about. I don’t know if I really do know what
I’m talking about [laughing] but, erm, she sees my vision. [Pause 4 seconds] Well,
maybe she doesn’t. She sees that I have a vision, but she doesn’t see what it is…you
know what I mean?
Daniel adopted the blame for this breakdown of communication between his team
partner and himself:
D: It’s partly my fault because I can’t really describe [pause 2 secs] how I’m wanting to
teach it. I just sort of have an idea, and I can’t/I mean in order for me to really describe it
to her I’d have to just show her sort of the learning I did over in [the university] and all
that, and all the papers I’ve read from there and…my inquiry project I did last
year…and…I mean I could, I guess, steer her in the right direction and say ‘this is sort of
the latest thinking on teaching math in a constructive manner’, or this and that, but I
can’t really explain to her how to do it.
When I asked how he felt about needing to try to explain new teaching approaches to
experienced teachers, we see Daniel’s characteristic beginning teacher’s uncertainties
coming to the fore:
D: Erm, yeah, I guess it was a bit nerve-wracking. ‘Cos how do I know if I’m doing it
right, right?
Though he cannot find the words to describe inquiry-based teaching to his col-
leagues, and does not feel completely confident that his approach is the ‘right’ one, his
decision to resist splitting his multi-aged class for mathematics represents an act of
courage from a first-year teacher. Whilst he was hesitant in his ability to describe good
inquiry-based practice in mathematics, he had the confidence to take a stand to practicein the way he thought would best benefit his students, even in the face of resistance—a
characteristic that is evident in the data for several of the other beginning teachers in
my study and that is developing as a consistent theme in the continued longitudinal
research I am conducting with these teachers. However, we also can see here how
Daniel’s inability to describe inquiry-based practice interfered with his capacity to help
his teaching colleagues understand what he was attempting to achieve through inquiry
and hence prevented the Grade 1/2 teachers from coming together to learn from
one another.
Discussion and implications
Aporia: ‘a perplexing difficulty’ (Oxford English Dictionary)
Whilst I have used Daniel’s experience of learning to teach through inquiry as an example
in this article, his case represents a common theme in the data collected during the study.
Daniel, and most of the other beginning teachers, conveyed a tentativeness in their talk
about inquiry-based learning that presents, for me as a teacher educator, an aporia or
perplexing difficulty, in that their observed classroom practices belied their articulated
concerns of under-preparedness and their relatively unsophisticated ways of describing
inquiry in mathematics. If, as teacher educators working in an inquiry-based frame, we are
concerned with shaping strong inquiry-based practices in beginning teachers’ classroom
teaching, why should it matter that those beginning teachers seem unable to articulately
256 J. Towers
123
describe their vision for teaching through inquiry? Herein lies the aporia. Graduating
beginning teachers whose ability to describe good practice lags behind their capacity to
enact it leads to several challenges.
Challenges for collaborative practice
As Daniel’s case reveals, the inability to fluently describe a vision for inquiry-based
teaching can lead to a set of dilemmas that centres on the difficulty of collaborating with
other teachers who do not share the same vision for teaching. Daniel made the difficult
decision to withdraw from collaborative planning and teaching efforts with the more
experienced teacher in his grade team, not because he does not value collaboration but
because he wished to protect what he saw as an important feature of his mathematics
teaching—the opportunity to present flexible contexts and problems to students that he felt
could accommodate both grade levels of students. In terms of a phronetic approach to
teaching, we might see Daniel’s action here as the exercise of discernment and good
judgment. As Dunne (2005) notes, what is called for in situations of complexity is
‘receptivity to the problem…rather than keenness to master it with a solution’ (p. 377) and
Daniel’s resistance shows that he is receptive to the challenge of teaching through inquiry.
It is clear that his inability to describe inquiry-based practice, though, interfered with his
capacity to help his teaching colleagues understand his vision for teaching through inquiry
and hence prevented the Grade 1/2 teachers from coming together to learn from one
another. Daniel is in a difficult position—caught between a vision for teaching through
inquiry that he feels is right but cannot articulate fluently and a system populated by
veterans who value straight talking, ready and familiar answers, and tried and tested
methodologies. Daniel’s response to this dilemma was to assume the blame for the lack of
collaboration in his grade team, and attribute the problem to his inability to articulate
his vision.
If beginning teachers, educated in and wishing to practice inquiry-based teaching and
learning, are not to have their initial attempts at inquiry-based teaching filtered through
more traditional teachers’ lenses of ‘what works with these kids’, then they must be given
the opportunity and support to grow their practice. In this frame, Daniel’s decision to resist
his team-partner’s vision of team-teaching might be seen as, in fact, a sensible one. Like
many first year teachers, not all of Daniel’s attempts to teach through inquiry were smooth,
and a team-teaching approach (with a sceptical teacher) immediately puts the novice
teacher under pressure to make an inquiry approach ‘perform’ better than a traditional one.
This is an unreasonable expectation for a newcomer. Being ‘teamed’ with a sceptical
veteran is, therefore, a particularly undesirable assignment for a beginning teacher
attempting to teach through inquiry.
Collaborative practice is increasingly seen as an important element of developing a
school or classroom culture that supports student learning and teacher change (Krainer and
Wood 2008), and a teacher’s willingness to collaborate with others is perceived as a
valuable disposition (Alberta Learning 2004; Britt et al. 2001; Government of Alberta
1997; Kluth and Straut 2003). Hence, a beginning teacher who seems to resist collabo-
ration or team-teaching may be perceived as ‘difficult’ to work with and, therefore, not the
kind of person principals want to have on their staff. As we have seen, Daniel had good
reason to resist collaborative planning and teaching in his particular context, but his case
suggests that further research is needed to help us better understand the nuances of
beginning teachers’ experiences of trying to enact and sustain inquiry in a context where
they encounter resistance.
Learning to teach mathematics through inquiry 257
123
Many beginning teachers do indeed abandon research-based practices in favour of the
more common traditional practices they see around them in the schools (Allen 2009), but
Daniel’s case shows us that inquiry-based practices can be maintained, though perhaps at a
cost (in this case, lost opportunities to collaborate with more experienced teachers as there
was likely much Daniel could have learned from his team partner if they could have found
a meeting ground). Research that specifically seeks to explore ways in which collaboration
can be encouraged such that beginning and experienced teachers can learn from one
another, despite holding opposing philosophical views about teaching, would be particu-
larly valuable since these are the conditions under which teachers like Daniel have to try to
practice inquiry. Such research may also help to inform current debates about the role of
induction and mentoring programmes for beginning teachers.
Challenges in the assessment process
The second challenge suggested by data that reveal beginning teachers whose ability to
describe good practice lags behind their capacity to enact it, is the way in which a
beginning teacher’s competence is perceived by those responsible for assessing them and
recommending them for permanent teaching contracts. Typically, beginning teachers are
assessed by school-based administrators, many of whom rely on multiple measures of
beginning teacher competence, including classroom observations and, crucially, interviews
and/or informal conversations with other members of staff in the school who may have had
opportunity to interact with the beginning teacher. Even when administrators support
inquiry-based practices in the classroom, they may be swayed by concerns expressed by
other powerful constituents in the educational community, such as parents and experienced
senior teachers—particularly if those voices internal to the school (such as senior teachers)
indicate that the beginning teacher seems unwilling to collaborate with, or learn from,
others. The beginning teacher’s capacity to confidently and fluently describe their own
vision for teaching, and/or their willingness to ‘fit in’ with dominant practices in the
school, may therefore contribute significantly to how they are perceived in the school
community as a competent teacher.
Phronesis is ‘knowledge not as a possession…but as invested in action’ (Dunne and
Pendlebury 2002, p. 198)—specifically ethical action, action oriented to the good—and as
Flyvbjerg (2001) notes phronesis concerns itself with addressing three fundamental
questions—Where are we going? Is this desirable? What should be done? Daniel showed
that he was concerned with whether his practices were desirable—oriented to the good—
and was able to take action that showed his knowledge of what ought to be done; yet, he
seemed unable to articulate the first dimension of Flyvbjerg’s triad: Where are we going?
Beginning teachers’ responses to explicit or implicit expressions of this dimension in the
collective (for example, grade team discussions of team-teaching structures and philoso-
phies) are often seen as a crucial measure of whether they ‘fit’ in a particular school’s
vision and structures. In Daniel’s case, his inability to articulate how he felt the team’s
practices should be moving left his team partner at a loss to understand how she might
move away from traditional mathematics teaching practices and towards an inquiry
orientation. She and Daniel drew away from collaborative teaching (despite a highly
conducive physical teaching space they shared) and, as a senior teacher in the building, her
opinion of his competence as a beginning teacher no doubt carried weight. Whilst Daniel
did gain an ongoing teaching contract with the school board, he moved schools several
times in search of a place where inquiry-based teaching practices were widespread
amongst the staff. Daniel’s case suggests that we still have much to learn about how
258 J. Towers
123
inquiry-based practices are fostered and sustained in schools and about how administrators
assess beginning teachers who privilege such approaches in their classrooms. Further
research on these questions is needed.
Challenges for teacher education practices
From the point of view of preservice teacher education programmes, an immediate response
to the aporia identified here might be to effect a fix—to more deliberately teach the language
of inquiry to these prospective teachers so that their discourse catches up with their enacted
practice. In this way, graduates might put on a better show in employment interviews, and
they might also be better able to convince reluctant colleagues in the schools of the value of
inquiry-based practice. However, my ongoing research is considering whether directly
teaching the talk of inquiry may interrupt the very learning that enables the (embodied)
inquiry-based practice to develop (see Smits et al. 2008). Clearly, teaching beginning
teachers to talk of (rather than just enact) inquiry in sophisticated ways might be accom-
plished by more subtle means, and so as a programme we are further developing the avenues
through which prospective teachers are able to document their learning so that they have
additional and richer opportunities to express what they know. These opportunities include,
for example, documenting learning throughout the programme in electronic portfolios and
expanding prospective teachers’ opportunities to present in public.
As Dunne (1997) in his extensive analysis of phronetic knowledge notes though, ‘the
knowing person can never quite catch up with how he or she knows…if to be known means to
be fully available for inspection and certification by consciousness’ (p. 357). Drawing on
Gadamer’s (1989) work, Dunne (1997) further suggests that phronesis bestows a ‘peculiarly
intimate kind of self-knowledge without however making this self fully transparent or
available’ (pp. 126–127) and hence ‘the self appears not within the field that can be surveyed
by phronesis but rather in the very activity of phronesis itself’ (p. 269). Daniel’s inability to
describe the tenets and practices of inquiry-based learning (despite evidence that he enacts
inquiry-based teaching practices in the classroom) emphasises the embodied and tacitly held
nature of his knowledge. In addition, Daniel’s suggestion that his colleague would need to live
through the whole, complexly woven programme of education in which he had participated in
order for her to understand his practice reminds us, as teacher educators, that we cannot hope
to simply tell learners what inquiry is, that instead they need to experience inquiry.
Research has shown that traditional preservice teacher education often has a limited impact
on prospective teachers’ conceptions of, and relationships with, mathematics and mathematics
teaching and on their subsequent professional practice (Ball 1990; Bennett and Jacobs 1998;
Ensor 2001). As our teacher preparation programme does seem to be having a strong influence
on our prospective teachers’ relationships with mathematics and on their classroom practices,
I am prompted to urge caution in rushing to modify our curriculum, lest we, by focussing
attention on the talk of inquiry, disrupt the very embodied practices that we are seeking to
foster. Daniel’s case suggests that we need to understand more about educating teachers to
practice and communicate about inquiry in schools; in other words, to be receptive to the
problem rather than to rush to master it with a solution.
Conclusion
Most of the beginning teachers in my study had not experienced inquiry-based mathe-
matics teaching in their own educational histories. Many had come to the programme
Learning to teach mathematics through inquiry 259
123
feeling very uncomfortable about the prospect of teaching mathematics, though all reported
feeling differently by the end of the programme. Several reported that the non-graded
nature of the teacher education programme was key in their willingness to undertake an
additional mathematics course in their final semester, and that the programme philosophy
and structure had enabled them to uncover and face their weaknesses, encouraged them to
take on the challenge of addressing the gaps in their preparation, and convinced them of the
value of inquiry-based practices. This is heartening information, because inquiry-based
materials and classroom practices have been shown to enhance student achievement and/or
mathematical understanding as well as attitudes or motivation (see e.g. Boaler 1998;
Hickey et al. 2001). There is every reason, then, that teacher educators should continue to
encourage such practices through their preservice teacher preparation programmes. The
data I have collected show that, given a certain kind of programme philosophy, structure,
and activities, beginning teachers, even those like Daniel who enter their programme with
limited content area knowledge, can be taught to enact strong inquiry-based practices.
However, my data also raise questions about how such programmes might better prepare
graduates as they learn to ‘talk the talk’ of inquiry so that they are better able to articulate
their vision for teaching through inquiry and so that their ability to describe good practice
catches up with their ability to enact it.
As I have attempted to show here, strong inquiry-based teaching is nuanced and
complex practice and the evidence suggests that for beginning teachers the knowledge
upon which such practice rests may be tacitly held, and deeply embodied. As Dunne (2005)
notes, against the advantages of control, predictability and accountability offered by a
technical approach to teaching, phronetic knowledge—knowledge with an irreducible core
of judgment—‘can appear makeshift, unreliable, elitist and unaccountable’ (p. 377). We
might expect that this would leave beginning teachers feeling as though they have no stable
ground on which to stand, no confidence in the validity of their approach, and no authority
to teach. On the contrary, though, and as Daniel’s experience shows, given a programme
philosophy, structures, and activities grounded in phronesis, beginning teachers can learn
to enact strong inquiry-based practices, even in the face of opposition, or at least lack of
understanding, from more experienced teacher-colleagues in the schools.
Acknowledgement The research study described here was funded by the Alberta Advisory Committee forEducational Research.
References
Alberta Learning. (2004). Focus on inquiry: A teacher’s guide to implementing inquiry-based learning.Edmonton, AB: Alberta Learning, Learning and Teaching Resources Branch.
Allen, J. (2009). Valuing practice over theory: How beginning teachers re-orient their practice in thetransition from the university to the workplace. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 647–654.
Aulls, M. W., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Inquiry in education. Volume I: The conceptual foundations forresearch as a curricular imperative. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ball, D. (1990). Breaking with experience in learning to teach mathematics: The role of a preservicemethods course. For the Learning of Mathematics, 10(2), 10–16.
Barrett, J. E., Jones, G. A., Mooney, E. S., Thornton, C. A., Cady, J., Olson, J., & Guinee, T. (2002).Understanding novice teachers: Contrasting cases. In D. S. Mewborn, P. Sztajn, D. Y. White, H. G.Wiegel, R. L. Bryant, & K. Nooney (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual meeting of theNorth American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education(Vol. III, pp. 1417–1425). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, andEnvironmental Education. Eric Document ED471772.
260 J. Towers
123
Benjamin, W.-J. (2002, April). Development and validation of student teaching performance assessmentbased on Danielson’s framework for teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducation Research Association. New Orleans, LA. Eric Document ED 471552.
Benke, G., Hospesova, A., & Ticha, M. (2008). The use of action research in teacher education.In K. Krainer & T. Wood (Eds.), The international handbook of mathematics teacher education.Volume 3: Participants in mathematics teacher education. Individuals, teams, communities andnetworks (pp. 283–308). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Bennett, T., & Jacobs, V. (1998, April). Becoming a teacher of mathematics: The effects of a children’sthinking approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation. San Diego, CA.
Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal forResearch in Mathematics Education, 29(1), 41–62.
Britt, M., Irwin, K., & Ritchie, G. (2001). Professional conversations and professional growth. Journal ofMathematics Teacher Education, 4(1), 29–53.
Britzman, D. (1991). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach. Albany, NY: StateUniversity of New York Press.
Burn, K., Haggar, H., Mutton, T., & Everton, T. (2000). Beyond concerns with self: The sophisticatedthinking of beginning student teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26(3), 259–278.
Chazan, D., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Beyond being told not to tell. For the Learning of Mathematics, 19(2),2–10.
Coulter, D., & Wiens, J. R. (2002). Educational judgement: Linking the actor and the spectator. EducationalResearcher, 31(4), 15–25.
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890–1990(2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: Whatteachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Davis, B. (1994). Mathematics teaching: Moving from telling to listening. Journal of Curriculum andSupervision, 9(3), 267–283.
Dunne, J. (1997). Back to the rough ground. Practical judgment and the lure of technique. Notre Dame, IN:University of Notre Dame Press.
Dunne, J. (2005). An intricate fabric: Understanding the rationality of practice. Pedagogy, Culture andSociety, 13(3), 367–389.
Dunne, J., & Pendlebury, S. (2002). Practical reason. In N. Blake, P. Smeyers, R. Smith, & P. Standish(Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education (pp. 194–211). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Ensor, P. (2001). From preservice mathematics teacher education to beginning teaching: A study inrecontextualizing. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(3), 296–320.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fuller, F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American EducationalResearch Journal, 6(2), 207–226.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). Truth and method (2nd revised ed.). New York: Continuum.Government of Alberta. (1997). Directive 4.2.1—Teaching Quality Standard applicable to the provision of
basic education in Alberta. Section 4 Ministerial Orders and Directives. K-12 Learning system policy,regulations and forms manual. Edmonton, AB: Government of Alberta. Accessed July 1, 2009, fromhttp://education.alberta.ca/department/policy/standards/teachqual.aspx
Hayes, M. (2002). Elementary preservice teachers’ struggles to define inquiry-based science teaching.Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(2), 147–165.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., Lubienski, S. T., & Id-Deen, L. (2006). Reconsidering the study of mathematicsinstructional practices: The importance of curricular context in understanding local and global teacherchange. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(4), 313–345.
Hickey, D. T., Moore, A. L., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2001). The motivational and academic consequences ofelementary mathematics environments: Do constructivist innovations and reforms make a difference?American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 611–652.
Hiebert, J., & Stigler, J. (2000). A proposal for improving classroom teaching: Lessons from the TIMSSvideo study. The Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 2–20.
Jacobs, J. K., Hiebert, J., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Garnier, H., & Wearne, D. (2006). Does eighth-grade mathematics teaching in the United States align with the NCTM standards? Results from theTIMSS 1995 and 1999 video studies. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(1), 5–32.
Kennedy, M. (1997). The connection between research and practice. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 4–12.
Learning to teach mathematics through inquiry 261
123
Kluth, P., & Straut, D. (2003). Do as we say and as we do. Teaching and modelling collaborative practice inthe university classroom. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(3), 228–240.
Krainer, K., & Wood, T. (Eds.). (2008). The international handbook of mathematics teacher education.Volume 3: Participants in mathematics teacher education. Individuals, teams, communities and net-works. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.
Lampert, M., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics. Investigations of real practice.New York: Teachers College Press.
Lobato, J., Clarke, D., & Ellis, A. B. (2005). Initiating and eliciting in teaching: A reformulation of telling.Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(2), 101–136.
Lund, D., Panayotidis, L., Smits, H., & Towers, J. (2006). Fragmenting narratives: The ethics of narratingdifference. Journal of the Canadian Association of Curriculum Studies, 4(1), 1–23.
Maher, C. A. (2002). How students structure their own investigations and educate us: What we’ve learnedfrom a fourteen year study. In A. D. Cockburn & E. Nardi (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annualmeeting of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 31–46).Norwich, UK: School of Education and Professional Development, University of East Anglia.
Mertler, C., & Campbell, C. (2005, April). Measuring teachers’ knowledge and application of classroomassessment concepts: Development of the Assessment Literacy Inventory. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal, Canada. Eric Document490355.
Moscovici, H., & Holmlund Nelson, T. (1998). Shifting from activitymania to inquiry. Science and Chil-dren, 35(4), 14–17.
NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council ofTeachers of Mathematics.
Pecheone, R., & Chung, R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The performance assessment for Cali-fornia teachers (PACT). Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22–36.
Phelan, A. (2005a). On discernment: The wisdom of practice and the practice of wisdom in teachereducation. In G. F. Hoban (Ed.), The missing links in teacher education design: Developing a multi-linked conceptual framework (pp. 57–73). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Phelan, A. (2005b). A fall from (someone else’s) certainty: Recovering practical wisdom in teacher edu-cation. Canadian Journal of Education, 28(3), 339–358.
Pinczes, E. (1993). One hundred hungry ants. [Children’s literature]. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Plowright, D., & Watkins, M. (2004). There are no problems to be solved, only inquiries to be made, in
social work education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(2), 185–206.Powell, A. B., Francisco, J. M., & Maher, C. A. (2003). An analytical model for studying the development of
learners’ mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,22, 405–435.
Puntambekar, S., Stylianou, A., & Goldstein, J. (2007). Comparing classroom enactments of an inquirycurriculum: Lessons learned from two teachers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 81–130.
Raymond, A. M. (1997). Inconsistency between a beginning elementary school teacher’s mathematicsbeliefs and teaching practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 550–576.
Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another (K. Blamey, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Shore, B. M., Aulls, M. W., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (2008). Inquiry in education. Volume II: Overcoming
barriers to successful implementation. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Smith, J. P. (1996). Efficacy and teaching mathematics by telling: A challenge for reform. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 387–402.Smits, H., Towers, J., Panayotidis, E. L., & Lund, D. (2008). Provoking and being provoked by the
embodied qualities of learning: Listening, speaking, seeing, and feeling (through) inquiry in teachereducation. Journal of the Canadian Association of Curriculum Studies, 6(2), 43–81.
Sullivan, W. M., & Rosin, M. S. (2008). A new agenda for higher education. Shaping a life of the mind forpractice. Stanford, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Towers, J. (1998). Telling tales. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 14(3), 29–35.Towers, J. (2002). Blocking the growth of mathematical understanding: A challenge for teaching. Mathe-
matics Education Research Journal, 14(2), 121–132.Towers, J. (2007). Using video in teacher education. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 33(2),
97–122.Towers, J. (2008). Living ethically in the classroom: Enacting and sustaining inquiry. Journal of Educa-
tional Thought, 42(3), 277–292.Towers, J., & Davis, B. (2002). Structuring occasions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(3), 313–340.
262 J. Towers
123
Wall, J. (2003). Phronesis, poetics, and moral creativity. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 6, 317–341.Watzke, J. L. (2007). Longitudinal research on beginning teacher development: Complexity as a challenge
to concerns-based stage theory. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 106–122.Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The aims of education and other essays. New York: Macmillan.Wilson, M., & Goldenberg, M. P. (1998). Some conceptions are difficult to change: One middle school
mathematics teacher’s struggle. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1(3), 269–293.
Learning to teach mathematics through inquiry 263
123